So, we're going to have Markdown for the wiki and probably for documentation (via GitBooks)..., which is not surprising considering the vast amount of support such documentation format has and the extensions for a complete documentation toolchain and features. As I said, I think that is an important syntax and we should put Scholarly/Pandoc Markdown in the radar for documentation support in Pharo. Is what I'm doing with Grafoscopio and now that Pillar support is again taking momentum, the infrastructure there (parsers, highlighters, editors) could be extended to support Pandoc's Markdown.
I'll keep you posted. Cheers, Offray On 24/08/17 17:59, Dimitris Chloupis wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:32 PM Stephane Ducasse > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > You have Netstyle/Workflow too. > > > done > > "Why are you using markup documents to create the wiki when you could > use Github wiki itself? > > For portability?" > > good question. Yes for flexibility , another reason however is that > Github wiki is a separate repo and I did not want that because in the > very back of my head I am considering the option of creating software > to allow access to wiki from inside Pharo and I wanted to be all > (content and code) in the same repo. Its a very low priority for now. > > Also Github wiki is basically the same as I am doing with some extra > format (table of contents) , in my case I dont care because Github > allows me to define HTML templates that will format the wiki webpage > and make it look a a lot more polished that pharo wiki looks like. > Generally there are some cool stuff you can do with Markdown and > Github , plus the fact that markdown can embed HTML etc. > > There is also the option of Gitbook which has some nice features for > generating polished and well structured documentation. > > So I like to keep my options open. For now I am focusing 100% on content.
